Judicial clerkships have long been regarded as a prestigious stepping-stone in a legal career, often framed positively by those who have had the experience. However, examining these clerkships closely reveals a more nuanced reality. In the article “Judicial Clerkships Are Not An Unadulterated Good” on Above the Law, the author Aliza Shatzman argues that the legal profession’s unanimous glorification of clerkships fails to account for the significant drawbacks some clerks encounter.
Many law students are gearing up to apply for federal clerkships via the Online System for Clerkship Application and Review (OSCAR). Additionally, numerous applications are also directed at state court clerkships. A significant part of the problem stems from the overwhelmingly positive recommendations from law professors, BigLaw partners, and former clerks, painting clerking as the best job an early-career attorney could have. The surge of social media endorsements and mentoring relationships further enforces this narrative. This positive yet one-dimensional portrayal disregards the challenges and adverse experiences many clerks endure. The culture of silence exacerbates the issue, leaving unethical behavior unreported and unchecked.
Another pertinent issue is the advice prospective clerks receive to accept the first offer they get without probing into the work environment or culture of the judge’s chambers. Former clerks, often reluctant to disclose negative experiences for fear of retaliation or reputational damage, are not candid in their feedback. This lack of transparency leads to a skewed perception among aspiring clerks.
Law school career services and legal employers are complicit in this dynamic. According to the article, law schools tend to romanticize clerkships, focusing on funneling as many students as possible into these positions, sometimes with little regard to the quality of the work environment. Legal employers place a high premium on judicial clerkships, viewing them as a “gold star” on a resume, without acknowledging the potential risks and downsides.
The insular nature of clerkship hiring, which lies exclusively in the hands of individual judges without any oversight, further perpetuates a culture of mistreatment. Judges retain immense power over clerks, including their future career prospects, which ensures clerks remain silent about any negative experiences. The judiciary has not undertaken significant reforms to address these issues.
To break this cycle, new initiatives like the Centralized Clerkships Database by The Legal Accountability Project (LAP) are crucial. This database aims to provide candid information about clerkships, helping prospective clerks make more informed decisions. The legal community must also advocate for increased transparency and accountability in judicial clerkships. Present and former clerks need to share their experiences openly, both good and bad, to foster a more accurate understanding among aspiring clerks.
While clerkships can indeed be a valuable experience, it’s vital to acknowledge that they are not inherently positive for everyone. Only through honesty and transparency can the profession ensure that future clerks are well-prepared and protected in their roles.